Page 9 - European Energy Innovation - spring 2018 publication

Spring 2018 European Energy Innovation
Directive for the period to 2030, which
brought the proposed phase-down
of the cap from 7% in 2020 to 3.8%
by 2030. With all of these changes in
recent years, it is clear that the biofuels unsustainable and therefore not
sector has had to put up with quite a
lot of uncertainty, which has hindered
investment.
So how is the situation looking on
biofuels as negotiations get going?
Firstly, I think that both Parliament
and Council have both adopted quite
sensible, albeit different, approaches
and I think it gives us something to
build on. Council has rejected the
proposed phase-down of the cap,
and has looked to maintain it at 7%, as
agreed in 2015, up to 2030.
In Parliament we agreed upon a
different approach whereby Member
States would each be capped at their
current levels, and the level of this cap
would be maintained to 2030, with
some flexibility for Member States
with shares below 2%. I think the
position Parliament has adopted sends
two important political messages:
firstly that we reject the Commission
proposal for a gradual phase out
of conventional biofuels, and
secondly that we want to protect the
investments that have already been
made, avoiding any retroactivity in this
regard. I think with the two positions
that are now on the negotiating table,
there is scope for us to work towards a
pragmatic outcome.
There are of course real sustainability
concerns on conventional biofuels,
and the challenge for us as negotiators
is clear: find a pragmatic solution on
biofuels that avoids burning investors,
www.europeanenergyinnovation.eu
9
BIOFUELS
but also ensures that the biofuels we
use are sustainable. In the Parliament’s
position we have included a text
that would consider Palm Oil to be
eligible to be counted towards the
achievement of targets from 2021
onwards. Concerns about this text have
been put forward in recent weeks,
particularly from representatives of
Indonesia and Malaysia - two large
Palm Oil producers that would stand
to be greatly impacted by this. The
arguments against the ban is that it
would not be in line with WTO rules.
This may be the case, but the inclusion
of the text, from a political perspective, Am I therefore pessimistic about
means that we will at least need to
try to find a solution that does not
incentivise the biofuels, such as palm
oil, with the highest environmental
impact.
I have long argued that a workable
solution needs to be found to ensure
that we do not paint all conventional
biofuels with the same brush; some
are clearly better than others. The
reputation of biofuels has been
tarnished due to the unsustainable
production of certain feedstocks and
their environmental impact; palm oil
is the obvious example. Biofuels
grown by European farmers which
achieve high greenhouse gas savings,
and which produce high-protein
animal feed as a by-product, are not
the same as imported palm oil. In the
Committee stage of Parliamentary
discussions, I proposed drawing
a distinction between good and
bad biofuels along these lines, but
unfortunately the emotive nature of
this topic meant it was very difficult to
get agreement.
It is clear to me that we should
promote the better performing
biofuels, and end support for the worst
ones; the way in which we achieve this
is less clear. The proposed phase-out
of conventional biofuels is difficult
for many Member States and political
groups for a number of reasons, most
of which I have outlined already.
Additionally, the uncertainty and
disagreement around the methods
used to determine ILUC factors for
different feedstocks means that using
these to determine sustainability is
extremely unlikely to get agreement.
finding a solution? I genuinely am
not. As a team of rapporteurs in the
European Parliament, we have built
up a strong understanding and a
very effective working method over
the last year. While we have differing
ideological perspectives on most
issues, there is always a will to find a
compromise. This is the attitude that
we will bring into negotiations with
Council, and I hope that the Bulgarian
Presidency will join us in this approach.
Vice President Sefcovic has set us a
target of October 2018 to conclude
negotiations on the Clean Energy
Package.
Although there are a number of issues
of contention within the Renewable
Energy Directive, which extend far
beyond biofuels, I am confident that
with the right cooperation, flexibility
and political will, we will be able
to reach a strong and ambitious
agreement which allows us conclude
well in advance of this target and
which puts us on track to meet our
2030 Climate and Energy targets. l